My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2003 Planning Commission Packets
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Commission
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2003
>
2003 Planning Commission Packets
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/26/2012 11:08:57 AM
Creation date
8/29/2018 5:48:59 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
707
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
�iem �o: 8 <br />�eeting [�at�: Auqust 20, 2003 <br />iype of �usiness: Discussion <br />I .. : �/ : I -, , ;.i, . .. w <br />io: Mounds View Planning Commission <br />Frarn: James Ericson, Community Development Director <br />ffi�rn Ti�1�ISubjec�: Discuss Modificatians to Proposed Ordinance 711, an <br />Ordinance Relating to the Zoning of Pawnshops <br />In�ra�iuction, <br />The Cify Council adopfied an lnterim ordinance on February 27, 2003, which direcfied the <br />Planning Commission to review the licensing and zoning impiications related to pawnshops <br />and to recommend applicable provisians. The Planning Commission d9scussed this issue at <br />meetings in Nfarch, April and May of this year, reviewing S#ate stafiues, ordinances from <br />adjoining communifiies and ordinances from communities where pawnshops currently operate. <br />The Commission alsa heard testimony from represer�taiives of the Mounds View Police <br />Depar�men� who did research on their own, discussing the pofientia! impac#s of a pawnshop <br />with other palice departments. After significant discussion and inpuf from inferesfied parties <br />including residents and fienants from Moundsview Square, the Commission adopfied a <br />resolufion forwarding iwo ordinances on to the City Council for their cansideration. <br />The City Council deliberated on fhe pawnshop zoning and licensing matters befare sending <br />the zoning component back to the Commission for additional study to consider (1) an overlay <br />'�' district and (2) poiential additional uses fo include within the overlay. <br />r . <br />The Planning Commission discussed the two issues at length and from that discussion, many <br />questions were raised concerning the legalities of an overlay district. The questions were <br />generaliy as follows: <br />1. (s there a minimum amounfi of land that the City can idenfify as an overlay district withaut <br />being unreasonably restrictive? <br />2. Woufd the City be ai "risk" if fihe overiay district encompassed ONLY unavailable property? <br />(the go(f course for example?) <br />3. Which other cities (if any) currently have a pawn over[ay? <br />4. Some cities expliciily limit the number of pawnshops that can be sited in the City whi(e <br />other communities ban them ou#right. Is either practice legally permissibie? <br />5. What ar� the lega! ramifications {outside of the scope of strict land use considerations) of <br />identifying multiple "unwanfed" land uses within one overfay? <br />�_ While there is some elemen� of (egal risk in everyfihing a city does, is the City afi greater risk <br />if it creaies a"red light" district, especially if opposed by 4he property owners? <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.